Re: [tomcat] branch master updated: Fix timeout handling. Write timeout could be handled as read timeout.

2019-11-18 Thread Mark Thomas
On 17/11/2019 22:33, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 5:44 PM > wrote: > > This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. > > markt pushed a commit to branch master > in repository

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added OS||All --- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 --- Comment #2 from Saurav Singh --- Hey Mark Thanks for response. 1. Once you see the exception, do all subsequent attempts to write a message trigger that exception? Answer --> Yes It does try to write message and trigger that excpetion

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 --- Comment #4 from Saurav Singh --- So I am working on Spring boot websocket which has method a afterConnectionClosed(final WebSocketSession session, final CloseStatus status) throws Exception that I have overriden on same handler class

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:01 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > The proposed Apache Tomcat 8.5.49 release is now available for voting. > > The major changes compared to the 8.5.47 release are: > > - Improvements to Async error handling > > - Stricter processing of HTTP headers when looking for specific

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas --- You should see a call to onClose() before this happens. You should also see an IOException in the thread writing the message. One thing I think Tomcat could improve on, is preventing applications trying to

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 --- Comment #5 from Saurav Singh --- You can see just now got same issue after raising the bug ticket: 2019-11-18T15:29:29,041 [tainer#0-1] co.ea.ex.no.tr.we.WebSocketServerHandler ERROR: o.tr.we.WebSocketServerHandler(dToSession: 525)

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #2 from Remy Maucherat --- The purpose of the tag is to know if there is an update. Thus, it is ok if compression does not change the etag, regardless of what the specification might imply in its language. -- You are receiving

[Bug 63932] New: Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 Bug ID: 63932 Summary: Content compression breaks contract of ETag Product: Tomcat 9 Version: 9.0.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: major

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #3 from Julian Reschke --- Hm, no. If the payload is different, it can't have the same strong etag. Consider the impact on conditional requests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov --- I think this also applies to the DefaultServlet for weak Etags: An origin server SHOULD change a weak entity-tag whenever it considers prior representations to be unacceptable as a substitute for

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov --- (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #2) > The purpose of the tag is to know if there is an update. Thus, it is ok if > compression does not change the etag, regardless of what the specification >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Coty Sutherland
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 2:01 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > The proposed Apache Tomcat 8.5.49 release is now available for voting. > > The major changes compared to the 8.5.47 release are: > > - Improvements to Async error handling > > - Stricter processing of HTTP headers when looking for specific

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 9.0.29

2019-11-18 Thread Coty Sutherland
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 1:56 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > The proposed Apache Tomcat 9.0.29 release is now available for voting. > > The major changes compared to the 9.0.27 release are: > > - Improvements to Async error handling > > - Stricter processing of HTTP headers when looking for specific

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Igal Sapir
On 11/17/2019 11:01 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: The proposed Apache Tomcat 8.5.49 release is now available for voting. The proposed 8.5.49 release is: [ ] Broken - do not release [X] Stable - go ahead and release as 8.5.49 Unit tests passed on Windows 10 and Ubuntu 18.04 Igal

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 9.0.29

2019-11-18 Thread Igal Sapir
On 11/16/2019 10:56 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: The proposed Apache Tomcat 9.0.29 release is now available for voting. The proposed 9.0.29 release is: [ ] Broken - do not release [X] Stable - go ahead and release as 9.0.29 Unit tests passed on Windows 10 and Ubuntu 18.04 Igal

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Mark Thomas
On 17/11/2019 19:01, Mark Thomas wrote: We have a regression affecting 8.5.x (and 7.0.x). The fix [1] for an issue raised on the users list [2] was incorrect and creating a different issue [3]. There are two questions to address. a) Do we cancel the 8.5.49 release for this and roll a 8.5.50

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Igal Sapir
On 11/18/2019 1:22 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 17/11/2019 19:01, Mark Thomas wrote: We have a regression affecting 8.5.x (and 7.0.x). The fix [1] for an issue raised on the users list [2] was incorrect and creating a different issue [3]. There are two questions to address. a) Do we cancel the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:22 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 17/11/2019 19:01, Mark Thomas wrote: > > We have a regression affecting 8.5.x (and 7.0.x). > > The fix [1] for an issue raised on the users list [2] was incorrect and > creating a different issue [3]. > > There are two questions to

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas --- Please take care, as Julian did, to be specific about whether you are talking about weak or strong validators. RFC 7232 states (section 2.1) Likewise, a validator is weak if it is shared by two or more

[Bug 63931] The remote endpoint was in state [TEXT_FULL_WRITING] which is an invalid state

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63931 --- Comment #6 from Saurav Singh --- Can I expect any help from apahe team to understand what's wrong going on? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
вт, 19 нояб. 2019 г. в 00:22, Mark Thomas : > > On 17/11/2019 19:01, Mark Thomas wrote: > > We have a regression affecting 8.5.x (and 7.0.x). > > The fix [1] for an issue raised on the users list [2] was incorrect and > creating a different issue [3]. > > There are two questions to address. > > a)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
вт, 19 нояб. 2019 г. в 01:42, Mark Thomas : > > On 18/11/2019 22:01, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:22 PM Mark Thomas > > wrote: > > > Is porting the multipoller removal to 7.0 really doable ? > > I don't know. I haven't looked at the code yet. I do

[Bug 63932] Content compression breaks contract of ETag

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932 --- Comment #6 from Konstantin Kolinko --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #5) > Please take care, as Julian did, to be specific about whether you are > talking about weak or strong validators. > > RFC 7232 states (section 2.1) > [...]

[Bug 63625] Unable to start Tomcat 7.0.96 (stop by 0xc0000005)

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63625 --- Comment #24 from Tony Yan --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #23) > I've just updated Tomcat to use Commons Daemon 1.2.1 where this is fixed. > > Fixed in: > - master for 9.0.25 onwards > - 8.5.x for 8.5.46 onwards > - 7.0.x for

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 8.5.49

2019-11-18 Thread Mark Thomas
On 18/11/2019 22:01, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:22 PM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > On 17/11/2019 19:01, Mark Thomas wrote: > > We have a regression affecting 8.5.x (and 7.0.x). > > The fix [1] for an issue raised on the users list [2]

[Bug 63625] Unable to start Tomcat 7.0.96 (stop by 0xc0000005)

2019-11-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63625 --- Comment #25 from Tony Yan --- Does it mean that Tomcat 7.0.96 32bit is not working because the Tomcat7.exe has defect? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.